Prop 31: Two Year State Budget Cycle and Government Performance
and Accountability Act: NO

While establishing a two-year budget cycle has some
advantages, this proposition meddles far too much in allowing local governments
to ignore state mandated programs such as state environmental requirements. Further,
it locks California into permanent underfunding of education, health, and other
vital services. This is much too complicated a subject to address with an
initiative constitutional amendment.

Prop 32: Special Exemptions Act. NO

This is an anti-labor measure concocted by southern
California conservatives under the guise of campaign finance reform. It
promises political reform but is really an effort by special interest groups to
weaken the role of unions in participating in the political process while
allowing corporations virtually unlimited freedom to contribute as they wish. This
does not even begin to fix the problem of money in politics.

Prop 33: Automobile Insurance Industry Pricing Act. NO

While purporting to save drivers money, this initiative
statute really gives insurance companies virtually unlimited authority to hike
rates. It is funded by Mercury Insurance billionaire George Joseph, who has put
up $8.2 million for the measure. He funded a similar measure that was defeated
in the last election, and this one should be too.

Prop 34: California Death Penalty Repeal Act. YES

This proposition would end the death penalty in California
and replace it with life without possibility of parole. It would apply to the
some 720 inmates currently on death row. It pits a coalition of justice groups
against a campaign headed by law enforcement groups. It costs state and county
governments collectively between $100 million to $130 million annually to pay
for the costs of death penalty trials, appeals, and corrections, savings that
would be allocated to pay for increased investigation of unsolved rape and
murder cases. Improved investigation analyses and more sophisticated DNA
testing have shown, not infrequently, that innocent people do get executed.
This practice is below the dignity of a civilized society. It is time to repeal
the death penalty.

Prop 35: Increased Penalties for Human Trafficking Act. NO

How can anyone be against a law to increase penalties for
human trafficking? We are, because this proposition is not necessary and has
too many bad provisions. State law already covers the subject thoroughly. If
the state legislature feels the penalties are insufficient, they can certainly
increase them, and it is unlikely anyone would object. In fact, state Senator
Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) successfully stewarded a bill through this current
session of the legislature that made needed changes to current human trafficking
law as it relates to minors. This proposition is an abuse of the initiative
process. The proposition makes no provision for funding, which will certainly
be in the tens of millions of dollars annually. It also contains numerous
provisions that seriously invade privacy and would have lifelong effects on
those caught in its web. We are sensitive to the issue, because it wasn't that
long ago that gay men were arrested and forced to register as sex offenders for
offenses as minor as public urination. Under this proposition, they would lose all
personal privacy for life. It is bad policy.

Prop 36: Three Strikes Law Modification. YES

This is a common sense modification of the "three
strikes and you're out" law. This measure provides that a life sentence on
the third strike could be imposed only for a serious or violent felony.
Currently, untold numbers of inmates whose third strike was for non-violent
drug possession are serving life sentences. This is a waste of money. Our
priorities as a society are backward when we spend increasing amounts of money
on incarceration and less and less on education. This modification would save
from $70 million to $90 million annually in prison- and parole-related costs,
money which would be much better spent elsewhere.

Prop 37: Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods. YES

Largely funded by out of state national food firms and
organic advocates, this proposition requires labeling of food made from plants
or animals with genetically engineered material. Prohibited in many countries
(e.g. France), no one really knows the health risks of genetically engineered
food. This is a transparency measure, which will allow the consumer to make an
informed decision. It would be the first such measure of its kind in the United
States.

Current tax law permits multistate businesses doing business
in California to calculate their tax liability under different formulae. Of
course, they will choose the formula most advantageous to them. This
proposition changes the law to require that multistate businesses calculate
their taxes based on sales made in California regardless of where they are
based. We agree that this is a loophole in the state tax code that should be
eliminated. However, this proposition then mandates that the increased revenue,
estimated at up to $1 billion annually, be earmarked for specific energy and
education programs. This is ballot box budgeting, and we oppose it. It is the
role of the legislature to determine the most effective use of revenues,
particularly in these hard times of competing priorities. This is a loophole
that needs to be closed, but this proposition brings too much other baggage.

Prop 40: Referendum on Redistricting. YES

This is a sour grapes attempt by unhappy Republicans to
throw out the district lines for the state Senate that were drawn by the independent
Citizens Redistricting Commission and upheld by the California Supreme Court. Since
2008 California voters have voted three times to have legislative and
congressional boundaries determined by an independent commission. This will be
the fourth election on the matter in four years. Enough is enough. A YES vote
affirms the boundaries drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission.